POLL: Massive Change to "Intercept"

I think intercept should still be ruled as being destroyed by battle, which in your proposed wording seems to be not the case.

But, I think I like this.

Vote for yes.

I very much disagree with this. This sort of effect is far too complicated to consolidate into just "Intercept", and it is unclear from a glance as to what it actually does. I know that if I saw the term, I would immediately assume that it's referring to the "your opponent cannot attack other monsters you control" card text.
Basically, this version of "Intercept" is confusing and unnecessary: it does not explain what it does, and there is no reason you couldn't just use "When a monster you control would be destroyed by battle: You can destroy this card instead.".
I believe we should just scrap the term "Intercept" altogether: It's not THAT common an effect, and "your opponent cannot attack other monsters you control" is hardly a ridiculous amount of card text. As for attack locks: I think we should add a ruling that says that if none of your opponent's monsters are viable attack targets, you can attack directly.
Voted no.

I'm not so sure Intercept needs to be immediately ditched just because somebody might not get it. It's easily remedied as: "What does intercept mean > It's a shortened version of [example] > Knows what it means now."

The attack lock part though, while in TCG it causes an attack lock, which can lead to stall when annoying people fill an entire deck with them, I think just making our own ruling on it can address that.

"If multiple Intercepting monsters prevent being targeted for an attack, then attacks becomes a direct attack." or "If multiple Interceptors are face-up, no attack lock occurs, and the Intercepters must be attacked first." Simple.

Then there is Omega's rendition is amazing as well. Which can be "This card can intercept destruction by battle for LIGHT Warrior-type monsters." which is shorter than "If a LIGHT Warrior-type Monster would be destroyed by battle, you can destroy this card instead."

Although I have no idea which one to go with. Intercept just doesn't not make sense to me.

OmegaWave wrote:As it currently stands, "Intercept" is a big point of discussion among the current members of ACG. Currently, "Intercept" is the term used to condense "Your opponent cannot attack other monsters you control." However, that has resulted in confusion and a problem that also plagued the TCG, attack locks.

Haven't we already been over this? Intercept does NOT create attack locks. That was the whole point of creating the term: the only way to control your opponent's attacking order was to use "Your opponent cannot attack other monsters", but it had attack locks, so you had to use "except [Insert this card's name]" which didn't really solve the problem as you can have two different monsters and it still locks.

"Intercept": If a monster you control would be destroyed by battle: You can destroy this card instead, ignoring card effects that prevent destruction by card effect.

That =/= intercept. If you have 1 weak monster, and 1 strong monster with intercept, your opponent can whail on the weak monster and kill the strong one. My version uses the strong one as a shield. You'd be fundamentally changing how 5 cards work for no reason.

I believe we should just scrap the term "Intercept" altogether: It's not THAT common an effect, and "your opponent cannot attack other monsters you control" is hardly a ridiculous amount of card text. As for attack locks: I think we should add a ruling that says that if none of your opponent's monsters are viable attack targets, you can attack directly.
Voted no.

Which would be harder to remember: How intercept works, or how a ruling that's not written on the card works? Plus that's also fundamentally changing how those 5 cards work. If I have 2 magic rabbit tokens, I want them to destroy them first, not get a free pass to my Life Points.

And it will be common, in my cards at least, because I need a simple, not-that-dramatically-gamechanging effect to protect my monsters. Who's to say it won't become more common later on?


Look, let's break it down:

Pros of Intercept:
* Is an easy term for protecting your monsters without creating walls and walls of text or awkward OCG.
* Searching for it in Duel Portal is easier than guessing what kind of wording people use
* Breaks effects down to one sentence

Cons of Intercept:
* Is a new term to learn for newbies, maybe confusing them
  (Yeah, but it is so easy it takes literally seconds to explain. They're learning about new ATK standards, and learning a totally different metagame, that this is trivial.)
* Rulings
 (Oh really? Give me ANY situation, I shit you not, ANYTHING and I will tell you exactly how it will be ruled)

Oh....I thought I imagined that thread.

Yeah, [html=https://acgclub.forumotion.co.uk/t69-terminology#362] this thread.[/html]

HOLY FUCK DOES OW PLAY PERSONA?

the problem is that it should be glaringly obvious to everyone what any card does - i honestly don't care if there's a text wall so long as there is no mistaking what the card does exactly

that is why no - i don't want intercept because hey sea IT DOES NOT SAY ON THE CARD THAT IT DOESN'T CREATE AN ATTACK LOCK and somebody who'd just turned up would not know that (i didn't know that) unless they go into a thread that is 3 months old

it also does not say, in the case of multiples for example what takes control in a case of multiples - does the freshest card intercept first? does the controller or the opponent pick which card is intercepting?

so as it stands - i'm against not only intercept, but pretty much all keywords at the moment and i'm going to give some anecdotal evidence as well as to why. when cardfight vanguard first came about, i was all for giving it a try. however, the game was absolutely full of unusual terms that i couldn't grasp on my own and i could not see how that would interact with gameplay and i could not read any card and say with confidence that i know how it works. that is what put me off playing cfv and it could very easily be what prevents people from playing a ccg with their own set of keywords.

Ash wrote:the problem is that it should be glaringly obvious to everyone what any card does - i honestly don't care if there's a text wall so long as there is no mistaking what the card does exactly

that is why no - i don't want intercept because hey sea IT DOES NOT SAY ON THE CARD THAT IT DOESN'T CREATE AN ATTACK LOCK and somebody who'd just turned up would not know that (i didn't know that) unless they go into a thread that is 3 months old

The TCG introduces a lot of terms that obfuscate things, you wouldn't have known that to Detach Sangan as Xyz material doesn't trigger the effect unless someone told you, right? We have to shorten phrases for the sake of readability too, within reason.

But now you know? It was in a pretty popular thread, I thought everyone had seen it. If they come here, they just ask "Hey, what's this intercept thing?" And we can explain it in under a minute.

That's literally the only catch with intercept - it's marauding captain without the lock. I don't think that's unreasonable to remember.

it also does not say, in the case of multiples for example what takes control in a case of multiples - does the freshest card intercept first? does the controller or the opponent pick which card is intercepting?

If they had 5 monsters with intercept I can attack any of them.

so as it stands - i'm against not only intercept, but pretty much all keywords at the moment and i'm going to give some anecdotal evidence as well as to why. when cardfight vanguard first came about, i was all for giving it a try. however, the game was absolutely full of unusual terms that i couldn't grasp on my own and i could not see how that would interact with gameplay and i could not read any card and say with confidence that i know how it works. that is what put me off playing cfv and it could very easily be what prevents people from playing a ccg with their own set of keywords.

When I played War of Omens online I thought it was very eloquently done. They actually used the word Intercept as a keyword and it worked kinda like this one. It made the cards so much easier to understand.

Now I'm not saying your experience wasn't real, but maybe it was confusing because you never played CFV before. Most new members have played the TCG so I don't think one or two new words will turn people off from the CCG.

But I'm not gonna go crazy and turn my cards into MTG clones. I think Intercept is important to making that effect more readable, though.

see i disagree about it being more readable. stuff like marauding captain, magician's valkyria are simple

"Your opponent cannot target face-up Warrior-Type monsters for attacks, except this one."

vs

"This card Intercepts attacks for face-up Warrior-Type monsters."

it's like a 4 or so word difference with 1 vital difference - anybody can look at marauding captain and be absolutely clear on what it does - no digging through old threads, no trying to get someone else's attention to see what it means. you get the exact meaning right away and that is far more important than trying to introduce keyword shorthand.

Tungsten Butterfly wrote:HOLY FUCK DOES OW PLAY PERSONA?

Unrelated to the topic at hand, but yes. I do.

As for Ash and his Vanguard problems, honestly i'm not surprised you don't understand the terminology of Vanguard because Vanguard is vastly different from Yugioh/Magic/Pokemon. It has its own terminology because it does things that other card games don't. I learned it all in 1 game though. As well as watching the anime. The first 5 episodes or so teach you all the basics of the game.

TBH, I don't care if Intercept stays or not, as I stated in chat. If it doesn't, ok. If it does, I atleast wanted to suggest an alternative meaning that can be understood as easily as using common sense and reading the rules before jumping in to the game, which no one seems to be factoring in here.

The real meaning of intercept is:

"Your opponent cannot attack other monsters you control, unless those monsters have an effect that prevents this monster from being attacked"

which I think is less readable than

"This monster intercepts attacks."

But if the majority thinks the above is more readable I will back down.  I just want everyone to know this is what's going in many of my cards.

Be honest, though; will you still play with complicated cards or say "tl;dr"   ?

If you say tl;dr, you might as well not even play, really. I don't mind reading card text.

Activate this card when a stupid person plays Yugioh: destroy 1 card on the field.


But seriously, I still don't understand the dissent against Intercept at all. Banish is neither functional or necessary but we still use it.